Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 9 filed on 12/23/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTOYAMA et al. (US20190004178) hereafter MOTOYAMA (Single reference 103 as the claimed limitations are shown/disclosed in multiple figs/embodiments).
1. Regarding claim 1, MOTOYAMA discloses a plane detecting device (Figs 4-7, 9, 16 and 20, paras 0057-0067, 0114-0120 shows and discloses a plane detecting device and a plane detecting method) comprising:
a camera that captures an image data of a target having a predetermined plane (figs 4-7, 16 shows the camera 41 capturing the images (i.e image data see paras 0058, 0114) of a target having a predetermined plane (see figs 5, 7 and 16 shows a target having a predetermined plane) meeting the above claim limitations)); and
a processor that processes the image data (fig 20, paras 0232-0237 shows and discloses the CPU 201 that executes the programs and processes the image data as shown in figs 4-5, 7, 9 and 16);
wherein the processor is configured (fig 20, paras 0232-0237 shows and discloses the CPU 201 that executes the programs) to function as:
an information acquisition unit that acquires visible image information and 3D coordinate information corresponding to the visible image information from the image data (fig 4, para 0064 discloses the matching processing part 61 (i.e the information acquiring unit that acquires visible image information (i.e corresponding pixels (i.e visible image information) between the base camera image and the reference camera image (i.e the form the image data)) and fig 4 element 62 (Three dimensional calculating part 62), para 0067-0068 (i.e the 3D coordinate information corresponding to the visible image information (i.e the output corresponding to the matching unit 61) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of the “an information acquisition unit, visible image information are not required by the current claim);
a likelihood acquisition unit that acquires likelihoods indicating a planarity of the predetermined plane of the target from the visible image information (figs 4, 6, 7, paras 0101- 0102 shows and discloses the plane correspondence detecting part (i.e a likelihood acquisition unit that acquires likelihoods indicating a planarity of the predetermined plane of the target (as seen in figs 5-7 and 16)) outputs a list of pairs of closest planes (i.e likelihoods indicating planarity of the predetermined plane) based on the information of the unit 61 (i.e the visible image information) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of a likelihood acquisition unit are not required by the current claim); and
a plane detector that detects the predetermined plane of the target through a robust estimation method by using the 3D coordinate information and the likelihoods (fig 4, paras 0063, 0101-0103, 0122-0123 shows element 68 (positional relation estimation part 68 i.e a plane detector that detects the predetermined plane of the target through a robust estimation method) using the 3D coordinates (i.e fig 4 element 62 output used by fig 4 element 68) and the likelihoods (i.e fig 4, the plane correspondence detecting part 66 (i.e a likelihood acquisition unit that acquires likelihoods) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics plane detector and robust estimation method are not required by the current claim). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, different figs/embodiments of MOTOYAMA are combinable. The suggestion/motivation would be a highly accurate device at paras 0001, 0013.
2. Regarding claim 5, MOTOYAMA discloses the plane detecting device according to Claim 1, wherein the plane detector detects the predetermined plane of the target through RANSAC by using a plurality of sample points randomly selected from the 3D coordinate information and the likelihoods each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of sample points (Para 0075 discloses RANSAC plane fitting method meeting the limitations of wherein the plane detector detects the predetermined plane of the target through RANSAC by using a plurality of sample points randomly selected from the 3D coordinate information and the likelihoods each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of sample points).
3. Claim 8 is a corresponding method claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. MOTOYAMA discloses a method in fig 9.
4. Claim 9 is a corresponding computer-readable recording medium claim of claim 8. See the corresponding explanation of claim 8. MOTOYAMA discloses a computer-readable recording medium (i.e recording medium storing a program/instruction in paras 0233-0238).
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAYESH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677